TOOL USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FUNCTION CONCEPT: FROM REPEATED CALCULATIONS TO FUNCTIONAL THINKING

ABSTRACT

The concept of function is a central but difficult topic in secondary school mathematics curricula, which encompasses a transition from an operational to a structural view. The question in this paper is how the use of computer tools may foster this transition. With domain-specific pedagogical knowledge on the learning of function as a point of departure and the notions of emergent modeling and instrumentation as design heuristics, a potentially rich technology-intensive learning arrangement for grade 8 students was designed and field-tested. The results suggest that the relationship between tool use and conceptual development benefits from preliminary activities, from tools offering representations that allow for progressively increasing levels of reasoning, and from intertwinement with paper-and-pencil work.

References

  1. Ainley, J., Bills, L. & Wilson, K. E. (2005). Designing spreadsheet-based tasks for purposeful algebra. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 10(3), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akkus, R., Hand, B. & Seymour, J. (2008). Understanding students’ understanding of functions. Mathematics Teaching, 207, 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Artigue, M. (2002). Learning mathematics in a CAS environment: The genesis of a reflection about instrumentation and the dialectics between technical and conceptual work. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 7, 245–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bereiter, C. (1985). Towards a solution of the learning paradox. Review of Educational Research, 55(2), 201–226.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bloch, I. (2003). Teaching functions in a graphic milieu: What forms of knowledge enable students to conjecture and prove? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(1), 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Boon, P. (2008). AlgebraArrows. Retrieved at June 9th, 2008, from http://www.fi.uu.nl/wisweb/en/welcome.html.

  7. Breidenbach, D., Dubinsky, E., Hawks, J. & Nichols, D. (1992). Development of the process conception of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 247–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S. & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33, 352–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2&3), 187–215.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cobb, P. & Yackel, E. (1996). Constructivist, emergent, and sociocultural perspectives in the context of developmental research. Educational Psychologist, 31 (3/4), 175–190.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Doorman, L. M. & Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (2009). Emergent modeling: discrete graphs to support the understanding of change and velocity. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 199–211.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Drijvers, P., Doorman, M., Boon, P., Van Gisbergen, S. & Gravemeijer, K. (2007). Tool use in a technology-rich learning arrangement for the concept of function. In Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Philippou, G., Proceedings of CERME 5, 1389–1398.

  13. Dubinsky, E. (1991). Reflective abstraction in advanced mathematical thinking. In D. O. Tall (Ed.), Advanced mathematical thinking (pp. 95–123). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Elia, I., Panaoura, A., Eracleous, A. & Gagatsis, A. (2007). Relations between secondary pupils’ conceptions about functions and problem solving in different representations. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5, 533–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Even, R. (1998). Factors involved in linking representations of functions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 17, 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Falcade, R., Laborde, C. & Mariotti, M. A. (2007). Approaching functions: Cabri tools as instruments of semiotic mediation. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66, 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. The Netherlands: Reidel: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Freudenthal, H. (1991). Revisiting mathematics education—China lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gravemeijer, K. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 155–177.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gravemeijer, K. (2007). Emergent modelling as a precursor to mathematical modelling. In W. Blum, P. L. Galbraith, H.-W. Henn, & M. Niss (Eds.), Modelling and applications in mathematics education. The 14th ICMI Study (pp 137–144). New York: Springer.

  22. Gravemeijer, K. P. E., Lehrer, R., van Oers, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.). (2002). Symbolizing, modeling and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  23. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from the learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). London: Routledge.

  24. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K. & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: commitment, constraints, caution and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hoyles, C. & Noss, R. (2003). What can digital technologies take from and bring to research in mathematics education? In A. J. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 323–349). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. Janvier, C. (1987). Translation processes in mathematics education. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in teaching and learning mathematics (pp. 27–32). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kalchman, M. & Koedinger, K. (2005). Teaching and learning functions. In S. Donovan & J. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn mathematics (pp. 351–392). Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kaput, J. & Schorr, R. (2007). Changing representational infrastructures changes most everything: The case of SimCalc, algebra and calculus. In G. W. Blume & M. K. Heid (Eds.), Research on technology and the learning and teaching of mathematics: Vol. 2 cases and perspectives (pp. 211–253). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kuchemann, D. (1981). Algebra. In K. Hart (Ed.), Children’s understanding of mathematics:11–16 (pp. 102–119). London: Murray.

  30. Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Constituting inscription and thought. In E. D. Amsel & J. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development. The development and consequences of symbolic communication. (pp. 167–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  31. Malle, G. (2000). Zwei Aspekte von Funktionen: Zuordnung und Kovariation. Mathematik Lehren, 103, 8–11.

  32. Meel, D. (1998). Honors students’ calculus understandings: Comparing Calculus&Mathematica and traditional calculus students. In Shoenfeld, A., J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.) CBMS Issues in Mathematics Education 7: Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III. pp. 163–215.

  33. Meira, L. (1995). The microevolution of mathematical representations in children’s activity. Cognition and Instruction, 13, 269–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Oehrtman, M. C., Carlson, M. P. & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Foundational reasoning abilities that promote coherence in students’ understandings of function. In M. P. Carlson & C. Rasmussen (Eds.), Making the connection: Research and practice in undergraduate mathematics (pp. 27–42). Washington DC: Mathematical Association of America.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Pirie, S. E. B. & Kieren, T. E. (1989). A recursive theory of mathematical understanding. For the Learning of Mathematics, 9(3), 7–11.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ponce, G. (2007). Critical juncture ahead: Proceed with caution to introduce the concept of function. Mathematics Teacher, 101(2), 136–144.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ponte, J.P. (1992). The history of the concept of function and some educational implications. The Mathematics Educator, 3(2), 3–8. Retrieved April, 2nd, from http://math.coe.uga.edu/TME/Issues/v03n2/v3n2.html.

  38. Rasmussen, C. & Blumenfeld, H. (2007). Reinventing solutions to systems of linear differential equations: A case of emergent models involving analytic expressions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26, 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sfard, A. (1991). On the dual nature of mathematical conceptions: Reflections on processes and objects as different sides of the same coin. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sfard, A. & McClain, K. (2002). Special issue: Analyzing tools: Perspective on the role of designed artifacts in mathematics learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 153–388.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Sherin, M. G. (2002). A balancing act: Developing a discourse community in a mathematics community. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5, 205–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Skaja, M. (2003). A secondary school student’s understanding of the concept of function—A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53(3), 229–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Slavit, D. (1997). An alternate route to the reification of function. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 33, 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S. & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tall, D. (1996). Functions and calculus. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook on mathematics education (pp. 289–325). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Trouche, L. (2004). Managing complexity of human/machine interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9, 281–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. H. A. M. (2003). The learning paradox and the learning miracle: Thoughts on primary school mathematics education. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education, 24, 96–121.

    Google Scholar 

  48. van Nes, F. T. & Doorman, L. M. (2010). The interaction between multimedia data analysis and theory development in design research. Mathematics Education Research Journal 22(1), 6–30.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Vinner, S. & Dreyfuss, T. (1989). Images and definitions for the concept of function. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(4), 356–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language—Rev’d edition. Cambridge: A. Kozulin. The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michiel Doorman.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doorman, M., Drijvers, P., Gravemeijer, K. et al. TOOL USE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FUNCTION CONCEPT: FROM REPEATED CALCULATIONS TO FUNCTIONAL THINKING. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 10, 1243–1267 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9329-0

Download citation

KEY WORDS

  • emergent modeling
  • function concept
  • instrumentation
  • mathematics education
  • technology